with the act of congress admitting this state into the union. Collins v. Bartlett, 44 Cal 371.

The power of the legislature over provisions for payment by municipalities of claims equitably due from them will not be revised by the courts, unless in exceptional cases. The act of 1870 [Stats. p. 309], providing for the payment by San Francisco of the claim of Patrick Creighton is held valid, although the act under which he rendered his services expressly declared that said city should in no event become liable therefor. Creighton v. San Francisco, 42 Cal. 449; and see McDonald v. Maddux, 11 Cal. 187; People v. Supervisors, Id. 206. It is within the power of the legislature to refuse to make provision for the payment of county indebtedness. [Rose v. Estudillo, 39 Cal. 270]; People v. Morse, 43 Cal. 534.

Municipal corporations are but subordinate subdivisions of the state government, which may be created, altered, or abolished, at the will of the legislature, which may enlarge or restrict their powers, direct the mode and manner of their exercise, and define what acts they may or may not perform, subject, however to the limitation that the legislature cannot direct the performance of an act which will impair the obligation of contract. San Francisco v. Canavan, 42 Cal. 541.

The act of March 3, 1870 [Stats. p. 146], requiring the city and county of San Francisco to pay out of its treasury for the services

of the commissioners and certain others employed on the proposed extension of Montgomery street is constitutional. Sinton v. Ashbury, 41 Cal. 525. The act of April 1, 1870 [Stats. p. 551], authorizing the city of Stockton to subscribe aid for building a railroad, is constitutional. S. &. V. R. R. Co. v. Stockton, 41 Cal. 147, and cases there cited.

An act allowing soldiers in the U. S. army to vote elsewhere and requiring the vote to be transmitted to the county of their residence to be canvassed is unconstitutional. [Bourland v. Hildreth, 26 Cal. 161]; Day v. Jones, 31 Cal. 262.

Legislative power prescribes rules of conduct for the government of the citizen or subject, while judicial power punishes or redresses wrongs growing out of rules previously established. The distinction lies between a rule and a sentence. The legislature as well as the judiciary may determine facts. Whether the determination of a fact is legislative or judicial depends upon the use to which the facts are put when found. The legislature may determine and declare that slaughter houses within certain limits are nuisances. Ex parte Schrader, 33 Cal. 279.

A state has no power to impose a toll upon lumber and logs floated down stream from that state into an adjoining state. States cannot regulate commerce between states. C. R. L. Co. v. Patterson, 33 Cal. 334.

The legislature could delegate to the municipality of San Francisco power to pass an

ordinance prohibiting the keeping of cows, swine, etc., within certain limits. Ex parte Schrader, 33 Cal. 279.

The courts will not review the determination of the legislature in empowering a county to subscribe for stock in a railroad, that such railroad will be a public benefit. Held, further, the legislature may compel a county to subscribe and issue bonds for such stock, and levy taxes to pay its bonds. Napa Valley R. R. Co. v. Napa County, 30 Cal. 435.

An act of the legislature will not be pronounced invalid unless clearly and manifestly repugnant to some clause of the constitution. People v. Sassovich, 29 Cal. 480. Nor on ground of general policy of the constitution unless such policy is manifestly expressed and not left to general inference. Pattison v. Supervisors Yuba County, 13 Cal. 175.

A county may be authorized to fund its debt by issuing interest bearing bonds and taking up its warrants which bear no interest. Chapman v. Morris, 28 Cal. 393.

Where retrospective laws have been held void it has been in consequence of impairing or disturbing some vested right. As to act validating conveyances by married women of their separate property, see Dentzel v. Waldie, 30 Cal. 141; settlement of estates of deceased persons, see People v. Senter, 28 Cal. 506; specific contract act, see Galland v. Lewis, 26 Cal. 48 and cases cited; all of which acts have been held remedial and constitutional. Legal tender notes, greenbacks, see Lick v.

Id.

Faulkner, 25 Cal. 405; Kierski v. Mathews, 592; Carpentier v. Atherton, Id. 564; test oath, Cohen v. Wright, 22 Cal. 294.

The legislature has power to appoint a commissioner to investigate and report upon an equitable claim of one county against another arising out of the creating of a new county and may compel the county indebted to levy and collect a tax to pay the amount reported by the commissioner to be due. People v. Alameda County, 26 Cal. 641.

The act April 26, 1862 [State. p. 462], to protect free white labor against competition with Chinese coolie labor is in violation of the constitution of the United States, giving congress power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. Lin Sing v. Washburn, 20 Cal. 534.

The legislature has power to direct a court to transfer an indictment for murder therein, to another district for trial. Smith v. Judge of Twelfth District, 17 Cal. 548. And may make the taking effect of local laws dependent upon the will of the voters of a locality-upon a majority or of a few-as in the removal of capitals, court houses, etc. Hobart v. Supervisors, Id. 24.

A clause in an act containing an unconstitutional provision will vitiate a whole act, if it enter so entirely into the scope and design of the law that it would be impossible to maintain it without the obnoxious provision. Reed v. Omnibus R. R. Co., 33 Cal. 212. And where the main body of the act is unconstitu

tional a particular clause must also fall, unless the latter is an independent provision, constitutional in itself and capable of enforcement without reference to the body of the act. Lathrop v. Mills, 19 Cal. 514.

The legislature may constitutionally prescribe rules of practice in criminal and civil cases; and among these is the provision as to the time and mode of excepting to irregularities of proceedings. The provision that persons held to answer before the grand jury is drawn must make their objections to the grand jury on its being impaneled is sustained. [People v. Beatty, 14 Cal. 567.] People v. Arnold, 15 Cal. 478.

The legislature cannot exercise judicial functions, and an act providing that no injunction shall issue against commissioners appointed to sell the state's interest within the water line front at San Francisco is unconstitutional. Guy r. Hermance, 5 Cal. 74.

The act of April 15, 1852 [Stats. 1850-3, p. 231], in relation to fugitives from labor held constitutional as an exercise of the general police power of the state, and slaves brought into the state prior to the adoption of the constitution and who asserted their freedom could be reclaimed by their owner under said act. In re Perkins, 2 Cal. 426.

SECTION 2. The sessions of the legislature shall be biennial and shall commence on the first Monday of December, next ensuing the election of its members, unless the governor of the state shall, in the interim, convene the legislature by proclamation.